20.6 sq mi, some 65,773 people, on a string of islands in the middle of the atlantic. – Bermuda

Main menu

Post navigation

Bring out the tin foil hats

Is the newspaper perpetrating a mass conspiracy to bring down the Corporation of Hamilton? Does the paper have ulterior motives in calling for the Corporation’s meetings to be open to the public? Are they blowing articles out of proportion in what could clearly be perceived as bias against the Corporation? Are they violating their objectivity and, if so, why aren’t people jumping up to paint pictures of conspiracy and condemn them? Are they not perpetrating the very same deeds they have undertaken upon our government? Or, perhaps, rather than some mass conspiracy could their real bias be in selling more newspapers?

The Royal Gazette is calling upon the Corporation of Hamilton to open their meetings to the public as part of their “A Right to Know: Giving People the Power” campaign. When asking Mayor Sutherland Madeiros for his opinion on whether the Corporation would be opening up their meetings to the public Mr. Madeiros is suggested to have responded that the Corporation is busy dealing with other priorities and public access just isn’t a top priority at this time. Many public citizens are genuinely annoyed with this response and are going so far as to call on our government to make changes to laws so that the Corporation would be required to make such meetings public.

Did the Royal Gazette display clear bias against the Corporation of Hamilton when reviewing Mayor Madeiros’ press statements by suggesting that he contradicted himself when referring to whether vetoes had been used in the past? Indeed, Mayor Madeiros’ statement “I had the choice of vetoing the proposal, something no other Mayor has ever done before, or acquiescing to the proposal.” could be interpreted in numerous ways and could be taken completely out of context. One, he could have been referring to whether or not any Mayor had vetoed specific proposals relating to the eviction Bermuda Society of Arts. Two, he could have been referring to vetoes in general and suggesting no mayors other than himself have ever used them or three, he could have been referring to vetoes and all mayors in general. The Royal Gazette, however, coincidently chose the latter interpretation and launched in a lengthy article attempting to discredit the character of the Mayor as having used vetoes in the past and suggesting that it contradicts his statement without first attaining the answer to its interpretation. Does this demonstrate clear bias and a conspiracy against the Corporation of Hamilton? Perhaps.

Is the Royal Gazette violating their expected objectivity by displaying such bias without investigating all angles and interpretations? Why is it that people are not up in arms shouting cries of conspiracy in the Corporation of Hamilton’s defense at such a lack of objectivity? Indeed, were not similar calls made and suggested of the Royal Gazette when it subjected government to the same requests for public access and displayed similar bias when investigating statements made by and actions of its leadership? Why then has their been such cries of conspiracy against the Royal Gazette and similar publishers when referring to similar deeds undertaken upon one organization, while when undertaken upon another, they not only receive a lack of condemnation but most people rally behind them in support of their cause?

Are we witnessing a mass conspiracy to bring down the Corporation of Hamilton? Does the Royal Gazette have ulterior motives in calling for the Corporation’s meetings to be open to the public? Do they demonstrate clear and unacceptable bias against the corporation? Are they violating their objectivity and if so, why is there no rally cry to condemn such a mass conspiracy as there has been when similar deeds have been undertaken upon government? Oh, right. Perhaps the real and true mass conspiracy is that the Royal Gazette’s bias lies in what sells papers, even if that means blowing news out of proportion to get people all riled up or undertaking the dastardly deeds of asking for changes in openness that would not only benefit the people, but would also ultimately benefit themselves. A dastardly grand plot by those morally bankrupt, vicious and vile, self-serving, snide and nasty savages to rob you, the poor common soul, of the extra change in your pocket.